(1.) By invoking the powers of this Court under S.482 Cr. P.C. each petitioner in these petitions seeks to quash the respective proceedings initiated against him under S.110(e) and (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, No. II, Tellicherry. As a common point arises for determination in all these cases these petitions are being disposed of by a common order. The counsel appearing for both parties also agreed to this course.
(2.) Crl. MP. No. 187/79 is directed against the proceeding in MC. 110/78 and Crl MP. No. 189/79 is against the proceeding in MC. 112/78; while Crl. MP. Nos. 191/79 and 193/79 are respectively against proceedings in MC. Nos. 111 and 109/78. The petitioners are said to be workers belonging to a political party. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kolavallur, submitted reports against each of the petitioners before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, No. II, Tellicherry, making certain allegations. The learned magistrate on receipt of these reports against the petitioners apparently being satisfied registered cases against them in MC. Nos. 109 to 112/78 and issued summons initiating action under S.110 Cr. PC. against them. In pursuance of the summons received, the petitioners appeared before that court through their advocates. But the court below without passing a preliminary order as contemplated under S.111 Cr. PC. started to proceed with the inquiry and adjourned the case from time to time. These cases admittedly underwent 13 adjournments for the said purpose. The petitioners have now come up before this Court praying for quashing the proceedings initiated against each of them under S.110 Cr. P. C. in flagrant violation of section III Cr. P. C. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is the preliminary order under S.111 that confers jurisdiction on a magistrate to proceed further and inquire into the truth or otherwise of the information said to have been received by him; that an order under this section is the very basis of a proceeding under S.110 Cr.P.C. and that in the absence of such an order, the entire proceeding is illegal and without jurisdiction.
(3.) It is not disputed that cases have been registered in M. C. Nos. 109 to 112/78 against the petitioners and proceedings under S.110 Cr. P. C. have been initiated against each of them in these cases and summons also have been issued to them to appear before the court below to proceed with the inquiry. It is also not disputed before this Court that a preliminary order as contemplated under S.111 Cr. P. C. has not been passed in any of these cases. Under S.110 Cr. P. C., when a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who comes under any of the clauses (a) to (g), such magistrate may, in the manner provided in the other relevant provisions in Chap.8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the magistrate thinks fit. The very object of this section is preventive and not punitive. This is a very important section in the sense that it is intended to protect and secure the interest of the society against injury at the hands of habitual offenders and desperate and dangerous characters. This is achieved by placing them under restraint in accordance with the procedures laid down in Chap.8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Action under this Chapter affects the liberty of a citizen and therefore the power under S.110 and other relevant sections in Chap.8 should be exercised strictly in accordance with law, with caution and discretion. These powers should not be used as an engine of oppression to fetter or curtail the liberty of a subject. Expeditious action and prompt dealing with the matter are absolutely necessary in proceedings of this nature. Prolongations of the proceedings by unnecessary adjournments have to be deprecated.